Hi Ant, Bo, Marsha, I think that is helpful Ant, It's kinda what Marsha was saying too.
If we "objectify" the patterns too much - as primary objects - we've defeated the whole point of MoQ. It's the qualty and its relative static / dynamic aspects that interest us. But Bo, Intellect is not "a pattern" in anyone's book (not even yours I suspect ?). It's a whole level in the MoQ SOM-Intellect is a pattern, maybe a pattern of patterns, but MoQ-Enhanced-Intellect is clearly a better one - is the point where we keep differing. I'm just trying find a simple language to have a conversation with you about the MoQ ... what it is and how we use it, etc. But, in fact if you see the whole of intellect as a simply static pattern, you have clearly totally missed the MoQ - so all other bets are off. Regards Ian On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bo, > >From what I remember (from correspondence), Pirsig says (as a general rule > >of thumb), that the Quality he discusses in ZMM is the same as the Dynamic > >Quality in LILA. This is seen, for instance, in the passages in ZMM when he > >equates the Tao in the "Tao Te Ching" with (Dynamic) Quality. > It's also worth reminding new readers to Pirsig's work that the (static or) > conventional MOQ (of LILA) states that Quality = Dynamic Quality + the static > quality patterns (the MOQ being just one of many static intellectual > patterns...) while in my PhD (see http://robertpirsig.org/PhD.htm), it's seen > that there is also a Dynamic (or the "World of Buddhas") perspective of the > MOQ where all static quality patterns are seen simply as secondary, ephemeral > manifestations of Dynamic Quality. > > I hope that's helpful. > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
